A Bolivia reseacher group announced today the discovery of what can be the oldest footprint in the world, found near the Titicaca lake.If they are right, the record denies the theory of human evolution and would prove the existence of "other humanities", previous to the present one.The record would be between 5 and 15 millions old, what would prove the existence of a humanity previous to the present one.

According to the EFE agency, the group, led by Jorge Miranda and Freddy Arce, presented the theory at Department of Exterior Relations and wants the opinion of international specialists.

The footprint of a left foot with 29,5 cm is in a sandstone rock.According to reseachers, it would have been done by a human being 1,7m high, with 70kg weight that had an erect walking.

"The Theory of Evolution would have many difficulties with this evidence we are showing now", Arce said.The rock was found at Sullkatiti locality, where itÃ‚Â´s object of worship.The inhabitants of the region believe that the object is a footprint of one of their ancestors, popular known as "inca footprint".

The footprint was found last year and it has been studied ever since.The Object, which is petrified, shows five fingers whose shape shows that the being, who generated it, was bipedal, according to the foot specialist Guillermo Lazcano, ANSA agency said.The Oldest Human FootPrint

You see what is not being told, and also called a lie, is that the tracks were removed and were the reason they are not where they were found. Because of this, Glen Cuban and others call these track fakes and frauds. Even to the point of accusing the owners of carving them.

A Bolivia reseacher group announced today the discovery of what can be the oldest footprint in the world, found near the Titicaca lake.If they are right, the record denies the theory of human evolution and would prove the existence of "other humanities", previous to the present one.The record would be between 5 and 15 millions old, what would prove the existence of a humanity previous to the present one.

According to the EFE agency, the group, led by Jorge Miranda and Freddy Arce, presented the theory at Department of Exterior Relations and wants the opinion of international specialists.

The footprint of a left foot with 29,5 cm is in a sandstone rock.According to reseachers, it would have been done by a human being 1,7m high, with 70kg weight that had an erect walking.

"The Theory of Evolution would have many difficulties with this evidence we are showing now", Arce said.The rock was found at Sullkatiti locality, where itÃ‚Â´s object of worship.The inhabitants of the region believe that the object is a footprint of one of their ancestors, popular known as "inca footprint".

The footprint was found last year and it has been studied ever since.The Object, which is petrified, shows five fingers whose shape shows that the being, who generated it, was bipedal, according to the foot specialist Guillermo Lazcano, ANSA agency said.The Oldest Human FootPrint

Deadlock,

I have just read a similar article only on footprints of birds found in the Santo Domingo Formation dated late Triassic. The footprints have all the similarities of modern birds; however, since they believe theropods evolved into birds the evolutionists came to the conclusion that they had to be made by some unknown theropods. The reason they gave was that they knew birds were not known to exist in that time period the footprints are older than the oldest known bird fossil .

Rather than to except the obvious tha these footprints were made by birds they dogmatically embrace devotion to their evolutionary religion. This evidence would disprove the bird to dino theory and we just could not have that.

I have just read a similar article only on footprints of birds found in the Santo Domingo Formation dated late Triassic. The footprints have all the similarities of modern birds; however, since they believe theropods evolved into birds the evolutionists came to the conclusion that they had to be made by some unknown theropods. The reason they gave was that they knew birds were not known to exist in that time period the footprints are older than the oldest known bird fossil .

Rather than to except the obvious tha these footprints were made by birds they dogmatically embrace devotion to their evolutionary religion. This evidence would disprove the bird to dino theory and we just could not have that.

Hey Bob,Here is the article from Nature......Bird footprints re-interpreted as dinoprintsAnd here is the abstract....The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record1, 2, 3, 4. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx5, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic6. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds7. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV8, 9 and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged10. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina11, 12, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

Hey Bob,Here is the article from Nature......Bird footprints re-interpreted as dinoprintsAnd here is the abstract....The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record1, 2, 3, 4. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx5, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic6. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds7. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV8, 9 and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged10. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina11, 12, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

Therefore , the A.SphereÃ‚Â´s idea that we must convince the mainstream scientists before teaching ID in schools does not work.ItÃ‚Â´s impossible to convince them despite of evidence.

Deadlock,

I could not agree with you more. The reason they will not be convinced despite the evidence is because evolution is a religion. Religious zealots will refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their religion.

Fortunately the "Academic Freedom" bill is gaining ground and I would like to see all the states in the country to approve this bill. Because once students are free to critically analyze evolution they will see it for what it is - a religion.

Hey Bob,Here is the article from Nature......Bird footprints re-interpreted as dinoprintsAnd here is the abstract....The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record1, 2, 3, 4. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx5, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic6. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds7. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV8, 9 and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged10. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina11, 12, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

It's all just part of the smorgashborg of ToE.Ã‚Â Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory. That's one long and complicated fairytale!

Performedge,

Thank you I appreciate your giving me the link I will be using it. I agree with you about ToE being a smÃƒÂ¶rgÃƒÂ¥sbord. It all goes to the point made by Walter ReMine in his book "Biotic Message" that ToE is so elastic it can be stretched to adapt to cover challenges. This makes ToE untestable, unfalsifiable which is exactly what evolutionists want. This makes their story telling religion easy to preach and impossible to prove.

If you have not read Walter ReMine's book I would recommend it. I obtained the copy I read through my lbrary and I intent to buy my own copy when finances allow. I do not agree with all his points but over all I do agree with his main message. It made some things much clearer to me. He covers much of what I have encountered here in this forum.

Thank you I appreciate your giving me the link I will be using it. I agree with you about ToE being a smÃƒÂ¶rgÃƒÂ¥sbord. It all goes to the point made by Walter ReMine in his book "Biotic Message" that ToE is so elastic it can be stretched to adapt to cover challenges. This makes ToE untestable, unfalsifiable which is exactly what evolutionists want. This makes their story telling religion easy to preach and impossible to prove.

If you have not read Walter ReMine's book I would recommend it. I obtained the copy I read through my lbrary and I intent to buy my own copy when finances allow. I do not agree with all his points but over all I do agree with his main message. It made some things much clearer to me. He covers much of what I have encountered here in this forum.

Bob Barclay

Yes I agree, I have read it. I borrowed his phrase smorgashborg. His logic is very good. But He's an engineer type like me. Engineers create things, and they understand using science and design. They can understand creation. Leave it to scientists to develop a faith where extremely complex organisms can be created through totally random processes. Maybe they could start a business someday and try and randomly produce something to sell. I know I would buy it. It would be one of a "kind".

Yes I agree, I have read it. I borrowed his phrase smorgashborg. His logic is very good. But He's an engineer type like me. Engineers create things, and they understand using science and design. They can understand creation. Leave it to scientists to develop a faith where extremely complex organisms can be created through totally random processes. Maybe they could start a business someday and try and randomly produce something to sell. I know I would buy it. It would be one of a "kind".

performedge,

As far as evolutionists ignoring or distorting the facts that contradict their religion as ReMine points out. I have made this point in another post that involves the alleged Ã¢â‚¬Å“missing linkÃ¢â‚¬Â Tiktaalik.

Not one evolutionist has attempted to explain the tetrapod tracks found in Ireland that predate Tiktaalik by a minimum of 10 million years. The Valentia Island tetrapod tracks are dated back to 400 to 385 million years while Tiktaalik dates back to 375 million years. With Acanthostega dated to 360 million years and Ichthyostega dated to 365 million years according to Dr. Clack in "From Fins to Limbs" in Natural History (July/August 2006).

This means tetrapods were up and moving on land 25 million years before Acanthostega and 20 million years before Ichthyostega. So tetrapods were crawling on land long before Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega where even a twinkle in the evolutionist's eyes.

Sorry, I'm at a loss here: Why would the possibility that hominids existed, say, 10 million years ago instead of 2 as we currently think falsify evolution? To be sure, some time-scales would need to be revised, but ......

Hey Bob,Here is the article from Nature......Bird footprints re-interpreted as dinoprintsAnd here is the abstract....The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record1, 2, 3, 4. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx5, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic6. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds7. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV8, 9 and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged10. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina11, 12, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

It's all just part of the smorgashborg of ToE. Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory. That's one long and complicated fairytale!

Just out of curiosity, what do "creation scientists" do when they find new evidence? Well, okay, they don't often find new evidence themselves, but what do they do when they read about evidence that contradicts their theory? From what CTD says, "Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory" is the appropriate thing for a creationist to do when it comes to your absolutely true theory! Remember? Creationists do not deny evidence, properly interpreted! That can only mean one thing: evolutionists are interpreting their evidence incorrectly, and it's up to the creationist to properly interpret it within the Biblical framework that you are absolutely certain you understand correctly. But okay, so it's good for creationists to reinterpret evidence to fit the proper Biblical framework, while it is apparently bad for evolutionists to reconsider their understanding of the things they study as they learn more about them--wait, am I putting words in your mouth here? If so, then what would have been the proper thing for these researchers to do when they collected new data that suggested that some fossils previously identified as birds were in fact dinosaurs? What is the logical basis for concluding "Evolution might be false!" rather than "Hey, these are dinosaurs, not birds!"?

Oh, and rbarclay, do you really not see the extraordinary irony in your statement that "Religious zealots will refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their religion"??? Do you mean all religious zealots except you? Do you realize what a hole that puts you in? With this statement you've disqualified creationists like yourself from rational scientific discussions, unless you can somehow demonstrate that you can acknowledge that anything can contradict something you absolutely know to be true (especially as it's already been argued to death that all evidence that supposedly contradicts creationism is either fraudulent or misinterpreted). So the best you can do is convince us that you are a spectacular mind-reader who knows that deep down, despite what they say or think, evolutionists really do think of evolutionary theory as a religion and believe it as zealously and dogmatically as you do your religion (which, incidentally, leaves no one able to discuss evolutionary theory).

I have no doubt you believe this to be true, by the way. After all, if you're absolutely certain that your interpretation of Genesis is absolutely correct, then it must be blazingly obvious to you (this isn't mind-reading, it's just common sense: the more obvious an idea is to someone, the more likely they are to be certain of it). And if it's blazingly obvious to you, how could it not be equally obvious to everyone else? And if it's blazingly obvious to everyone else, then how could it be that the more education and experience someone has in these fields, the more likely they are to reject your interpretations? Once you reach this point, then you're only limited by your creativity: "evolutionist must treat evolution as a religion" is only one explanation I've heard for this bizarre discrepancy. Others include "evolutionists know they're wrong, but they hate God" and "evolutionists are under the influence of demons;" I'm sure you could supply a few more.

Am I on the right track here? If not, be specific; which statements utterly do not represent your thinking? Or which links in your chain of logic did I leave out?

Just out of curiosity, what do "creation scientists" do when they find new evidence? Well, okay, they don't often find new evidence themselves, but what do they do when they read about evidence that contradicts their theory? From what CTD says, "Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory" is the appropriate thing for a creationist to do when it comes to your absolutely true theory! Remember? Creationists do not deny evidence, properly interpreted! That can only mean one thing: evolutionists are interpreting their evidence incorrectly, and it's up to the creationist to properly interpret it within the Biblical framework that you are absolutely certain you understand correctly. But okay, so it's good for creationists to reinterpret evidence to fit the proper Biblical framework, while it is apparently bad for evolutionists to reconsider their understanding of the things they study as they learn more about them--wait, am I putting words in your mouth here? If so, then what would have been the proper thing for these researchers to do when they collected new data that suggested that some fossils previously identified as birds were in fact dinosaurs? What is the logical basis for concluding "Evolution might be false!" rather than "Hey, these are dinosaurs, not birds!"?

Why doubt the Bible ?

It's never been proven wrong on anything, It's completely compatible with Science, and It's the Ultimate Standard of Morality and Ethics.

It's an Everlasting, NEVER changing Guideline.

The ToE is an Everchanging Theory.

Also it's not as if ToE believers don't do the same thing.

As in the Most Recent T.Rex find. Hey look Blood Cells, "That's not Blood this thing is 65 million years old. Oh Ok ! It just looks like blood.

It's never been proven wrong on anything, It's completely compatible with Science, and It's the Ultimate Standard of Morality and Ethics.

It's an Everlasting, NEVER changing Guideline.

The ToE is an Everchanging Theory.Also it's not as if ToE believers don't do the same thing.

As in the Most Recent T.Rex find. Hey look Blood Cells, "That's not Blood this thing is 65 million years old. Oh Ok ! It just looks like blood.

So, at what point in your life did "Why doubt my interpretation of the Bible?" become "Why doubt the Bible?"? When did "The Bible has never been proven wrong, and is completely compatible with science, because all supposedly contrary evidence must be either fraudulent or misinterpreted" become "The Bible has never been proven wrong, and is completely compatible with science"? And how do you manage to, in consecutive sentences, celebrate the fact that the creationists favor a NEVER changing theory, criticize the evolutionists' theory for being everchanging, and then complain that evolutionists also never change their theory (not only is it nonsensical to say we never change that theory that you say we constantly change, but you're freely admitting yet another case of "bad when you do it, good when we do it")?

Re: your T. rex "example", I'll start by asking you the same thing I asked performedge: what would be the proper thing for researchers to do when they collect new data that suggested that material previously identified as red blood cells were in fact not red blood cells? What is the logical basis for concluding "Evolution might be false!" rather than "Hey, these aren't red blood cells after all!"? However, in this case we have an additional problem, namely, your story is a bit of a fabrication. Mary Schweitzer and crew never said they'd found red blood cells. From the start, they said they found things that looked like red blood cells. From a BBC news story on the "soft-tissue" discovery (before she'd published on it): "Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance." The original 2005 Science paper that resulted also describes structures that looked like red blood cells, but from the start they did not once claim that these were red blood cells. A more honest representation of the story would be "Hey, these look like red blood cells! Hmm, I wonder how you distinguish a fossil red blood cell from a nonfossilized one?" Is this the way one reconciles all possible evidence with one's literal interpretation of Genesis? By changing the data itself as much as needed until it fits?

Just out of curiosity, what do "creation scientists" do when they find new evidence? Well, okay, they don't often find new evidence themselves, but what do they do when they read about evidence that contradicts their theory? From what CTD says, "Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory" is the appropriate thing for a creationist to do when it comes to your absolutely true theory! Remember? Creationists do not deny evidence, properly interpreted! That can only mean one thing: evolutionists are interpreting their evidence incorrectly, and it's up to the creationist to properly interpret it within the Biblical framework that you are absolutely certain you understand correctly. But okay, so it's good for creationists to reinterpret evidence to fit the proper Biblical framework, while it is apparently bad for evolutionists to reconsider their understanding of the things they study as they learn more about them--wait, am I putting words in your mouth here? If so, then what would have been the proper thing for these researchers to do when they collected new data that suggested that some fossils previously identified as birds were in fact dinosaurs? What is the logical basis for concluding "Evolution might be false!" rather than "Hey, these are dinosaurs, not birds!"?Oh, and rbarclay, do you really not see the extraordinary irony in your statement that "Religious zealots will refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their religion"??? Do you mean all religious zealots except you? Do you realize what a hole that puts you in? With this statement you've disqualified creationists like yourself from rational scientific discussions, unless you can somehow demonstrate that you can acknowledge that anything can contradict something you absolutely know to be true (especially as it's already been argued to death that all evidence that supposedly contradicts creationism is either fraudulent or misinterpreted). So the best you can do is convince us that you are a spectacular mind-reader who knows that deep down, despite what they say or think, evolutionists really do think of evolutionary theory as a religion and believe it as zealously and dogmatically as you do your religion (which, incidentally, leaves no one able to discuss evolutionary theory).

I have no doubt you believe this to be true, by the way. After all, if you're absolutely certain that your interpretation of Genesis is absolutely correct, then it must be blazingly obvious to you (this isn't mind-reading, it's just common sense: the more obvious an idea is to someone, the more likely they are to be certain of it). And if it's blazingly obvious to you, how could it not be equally obvious to everyone else? And if it's blazingly obvious to everyone else, then how could it be that the more education and experience someone has in these fields, the more likely they are to reject your interpretations? Once you reach this point, then you're only limited by your creativity: "evolutionist must treat evolution as a religion" is only one explanation I've heard for this bizarre discrepancy. Others include "evolutionists know they're wrong, but they hate God" and "evolutionists are under the influence of demons;" I'm sure you could supply a few more.

Am I on the right track here? If not, be specific; which statements utterly do not represent your thinking? Or which links in your chain of logic did I leave out?

You claim you are an agnostic. I would you to explain what that means?

You claim you are an agnostic. I would you to explain what that means?

Bob Barclay

Let's see, I presume you're referring to the popup list of canned options from which we had to choose as part of our registration here. I chose "agnostic" because it seemed a better fit than the other handful of options: I'm not certain about the existence or nature of the supernatural. Do you seriously intend this question to be a response to my post? It sounds like something else.

Just out of curiosity, what do "creation scientists" do when they find new evidence? Well, okay, they don't often find new evidence themselves, but what do they do when they read about evidence that contradicts their theory? From what CTD says, "Never challenge the theory, just reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory" is the appropriate thing for a creationist to do when it comes to your absolutely true theory! Remember? Creationists do not deny evidence, properly interpreted!

Hmmm? Dragging me into your tangent? In a way, I'm honoured, although I should prefer to speak for myself. I don't recall advocating the practice of reinterpreting evidence to fit theories.

That can only mean one thing: evolutionists are interpreting their evidence incorrectly, and it's up to the creationist to properly interpret it within the Biblical framework that you are absolutely certain you understand correctly. But okay, so it's good for creationists to reinterpret evidence to fit the proper Biblical framework, while it is apparently bad for evolutionists to reconsider their understanding of the things they study as they learn more about them--wait, am I putting words in your mouth here?

I'm not sure whose mouth your aiming for, but I don't think the words will fit.

Riddle me this: why would any rational human being accept any interpretation of evidence which assumes God cannot exist? This is a huge assumption, and it must be assumed a priori, for it cannot be worked in any other way.

Why would any reasonable person reject rock-solid history in favor of stories invented for the purpose of denying God's existence? What does a reasonable person do when presented with interpretations known to be based upon false stories and unjustified assumptions? "Oop, they're the experts. They're all so much smarter they must know better." Is this what you seriously expect?

Well, all your experts put together aren't even the tiniest fraction as smart as God, and they weren't around back when. If God says something and they say it isn't so, who does the reasonable, thinking, logical human being believe?

If you allow for God's existence and communication with us, you understand how absurd it is to take anyone's word when they contradict Him. Your complaints are only valid to those who insist God has not communicated with us. Anyone else can plainly see they're a joke.

If you'd like to present an argument with no atheist presuppositions, it might fare better. But I don't know that such an argument can be found.

I don't see how any of this has much at all to do with this thread. You talk of blatantly misinterpreting evidence to suit evolutionism as if it's perfectly acceptable behaviour. Then you act like someone must be a conspiracy nutjob to believe it happens.

Then later you give a demonstration

A more honest representation of the story would be "Hey, these look like red blood cells! Hmm, I wonder how you distinguish a fossil red blood cell from a nonfossilized one?" Is this the way one reconciles all possible evidence with one's literal interpretation of Genesis? By changing the data itself as much as needed until it fits?

Well now I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure I read that soft tissue actually was discovered. Not much of a sensation, otherwise. I don't see any evidence of creationists "denying evidence" or trying to misinterpret things. I do see an evolutionist telling a new story.

But what have these tangents got to do with anything? Footprints have been found. It's cool, fascinating stuff, and evolutionists hate (or dislike, depending on the individual) it. Nobody's twisting your arm making you read about it, I hope.

What then, does it bother you that predictions are made based upon patterns of past behaviour? Observing patterns is part of science, remember? And so is making predictions. Do you intend to argue that the science of evolutionology (my term for the study of evolutionists) is imprecise because there are multiple predictions? Have you any suggestions which might help an evolutionologist improve?

Let's see, I presume you're referring to the popup list of canned options from which we had to choose as part of our registration here. I chose "agnostic" because it seemed a better fit than the other handful of options: I'm not certain about the existence or nature of the supernatural. Do you seriously intend this question to be a response to my post? It sounds like something else.

I fully intend to answer our post but you seem to be preoccupied with the notion that I will not and that you now all about Creationists. Especially in the way you chided me in the previous post and the way answered this post. You already presume to know what I believe and want when in fact your post tells me you have no clue. You just lambasted me for exactly what you are doing now. Have you done this to others? If so it is no wonder no one has bothered to answer you. You have your mind made up that I will not answer your post and that trying to find out what more about you is some kind of run around. Stop making assumptions about people you do not know.

I have not listed any popup canned list of definitions that is your assumption. I will not answer your post without knowing where you stand do you not agree this is the best way to respond to accusations?

Now if you want me to answer your post I need to know just what you believe when you say you are agnostic. Just saying I am not certain about the existence or nature of the supernatural. Your skimpy description of what you are is not helping. What do you believe as far as evolution or creationism? What is your attitude about Creationists? Does it bother you that some one can an unwavering belief in the supernatural? If so why?

I fully intend to answer our post but you seem to be preoccupied with the notion that I will not and that you now all about Creationists. Especially in the way you chided me in the previous post and the way answered this post. You already presume to know what I believe and want when in fact your post tells me you have no clue. You just lambasted me for exactly what you are doing now. Have you done this to others? If so it is no wonder no one has bothered to answer you. You have your mind made up that I will not answer your post and that trying to find out what more about you is some kind of run around. Stop making assumptions about people you do not know.

I have not listed any popup canned list of definitions that is your assumption. I will not answer your post without knowing where you stand do you not agree this is the best way to respond to accusations?

Now if you want me to answer your post I need to know just what you believe when you say you are agnostic. Just saying I am not certain about the existence or nature of the supernatural. Your skimpy description of what you are is not helping. What do you believe as far as evolution or creationism? What is your attitude about Creationists? Does it bother you that some one can an unwavering belief in the supernatural? If so why?

Bob Barclay

What was it that I "chided" and "lambasted" you about? Oh yes, because I asked you if your seeming non-sequitur question of me was in fact your answer to my previous series of question or not. Come on, you have to admit that as an answer, your question doesn't seem exactly relevant! A bit sensitive, are we? I am not a Creationist, so I do not pretend to be a mind-reader. I have to laugh at the irony of your accusation, though, as you seem to have drawn some pretty detailed conclusions from a 4-sentence, 70-word post! Although, hmm... when you say "Stop making assumptions about people you do not know", are you referring to that short post (which would be nonsensical), or to my earlier post starting with "I have no doubt you believe this to be true, by the way. After all, if you're absolutely certain..." This would make more sense, except that I didn't assume this to be true about you; I proposed it as a hypothesis, and asked you if it applied to you, and if not, what parts are wrong or missing? Do you see the difference between assuming that something is true of you and asking you if something is true of you? (And just to save someone the trouble, I will come clean and admit that "I have no doubt" was a poor choice of words in this particular forum, where people do indeed pride themselves on their lack of doubt; my intended use was only as that well-known hyperbolic figure of speech.)

And perhaps you've been a member long enough that you've simply forgotten why all of our "post identifiers" list "Atheist," "Young Earth Creationist," "Agnostic," etc., because you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. You are listed as a "Young Earth Creationist" here not because you went out of your way to volunteer that information, but because when you joined there was a pop-up menu that listed a handful of choices, one of which you were required to choose as part of the registration process; you weren't allowed to skip it or insert your own choice. Sound familiar? If not, then perhaps others here who share your religious beliefs are better able to convince you that everyone here was required to choose a "position" from a canned list of choices.

So I'm sorry if you're not satisfied with my skimpy description of my beliefs regarding the supernatural, but the reason I'm listed as "Agnostic" is not because I had a burning desire to trumpet my ambiguous beliefs but because that was the best fit of the registration choices. If it were up to me I wouldn't list anything here because it is inappropriate to use my beliefs about the supernatural to help you assess the soundness of my argumentation, logic, or evidence concerning the natural world. That's the "genetic fallacy" (as a biologist I wish they'd come up with a better name!).

A few more pieces of information that may interest you. I am a professional biologist, and view evolutionary theory as by far the best available explanation for the diversity of life, present and past. However, I have no personal self-worth attached to this assessment; if a better idea comes along, I'm there (though I do see wisdom in the dictum "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). It's not a question of loyalty; well, maybe it is; I'm loyal to the concept of seeking the best possible answers, wherever they may lie, so I'm not loyal to evolutionary theory just because it is conventional wisdom. In fact, much of my professional career has involved taking a closer, critical look at "conventional wisdom" in biology. Thus I have been a bit baffled, and annoyed, at creationists who have never met me and nonetheless are absolutely certain that I worship evolution as much as they worship the Bible, that I am as absolutely certain and as dogmatically unyielding about its core tenets as they are about theirs, that they know what I really think about this even though I tell a very different, and detailed story. It's one of the many unfortunate consequences of confusing "I'm absolutely certain that this is the truth" with "This is the absolute truth."